Which colonies were profitable?

[VetLegion]

Countries had colonies for centuries, but after WWII the practice slowly became morally unacceptable and colonies achieved independance.

One can often hear that this or that country built its fortune on exploatation of colonies.

In fact, the picture is not that simple. There have been profitable and unprofitable colonies. Many territories were held for prestige and percieved military importance, not because of economic gain.

My question is: what colonies have over the length of colonialism been net profitable for the metropola?

(Meaning that profits from trade or exploatation were higher than costs of keeping the colony supplied, maintaining order and investing in infrastructure and so on).

[Bill3000]

Considering that the vast amount of colonies are independent today, almost none?

[SlowwHand]

Wouldn't you include India, for trade?
I probably misunderstand the question because I'm a Texas redneck, but wouldn't you?

[Skanky Burns]

All of my colonies are. I get them up to level 12 mines using their own resources then start shipping the resources back to my homebase. After a weeks investment they quickly start paying for themselves.

[Seeker]

Martinique, Trinidad, Brazil, Peru, Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa, etc etc.

Most colonies had a period of extreme profitability. That why they were colonized. Then markets changed, became oversaturated, or disappeared. Examples rubber, cinnamon, wool, teak, beaver-fur, tobacco, and the Big Daddy, sugar.

An increasing world-wide production and creation of cheap domestic/artificial subsitutes made many colonies based on unique agricultural commodities much less profitable vs the expense of supporting lots of staff/military there: sugar, cotton, indigo

Also, markets could simply disappear largely: opium, slaves, ivory (plastics and scarity) natural rubber.

Second, the rise of anti-colonial feeling was itself expensive. For example, why pay all the money for police, teachers, hospitals, soldiers, and bureaucrats when you could just buy them for cheaper?

The exception is colonies that were captured for strategic reasons, or simply in order to have a colony. German Southwest Africa 'Namibia' is an example of a colony that was always a drain and never really had an economic justification, it was political.

[Ecthy]

I was told that colonies were never really profitable, unless during the world wars., when they provided manpower.

That statement however doesn't quite seem to include the Potosi silver for Spain, or luxury resources for any western European country.

[Barnabas]

Peru/Bolivia, and Mexico were highly profitable.

La Capitania General de Chile was not profitable, Buenos Aires was not profitable either, but it was strategic, to keep the portuguese out of the river plate, and if the piracy was very bad in the caribean, the spaniards could take the bolivian silver thru buenos aires, which was safer.

philippine Islands were not profitable, were strategic, they were the center of spanish trade with asia, where they would get silk, porcelain, spices etc.

for them it was safer to go from mexico to the phillipines, because the indic ocean was infested with dutch sailors.


in Brazil the state of Minas Gerais was the most important one, the portuguese would get the gold there, they even had a revival of prosperity for 50 years when the mines were discovered, but they later run out of gold.

[Barnabas]

this is spain, I know very little about england in africa-asia

[Verto]

England's American colonies were profitable.

[Barnabas]

what did the americans produce for england while they were colonies?

[Dinner]

India, Indonesia, and South Africa come to mind. As do Brazil, Mexico/New Spain, and Peru. Probably Mexico & PEru were the most profitable as the Spanish of the 16th century used a ruthlessness which would have been beyond the pale even in the 17th or 18th centuries.

I imagine colonies like the US & India generated a great deal of cash flow and resources but they also required a huge amount of capital expenditures for infastructure and military defense. I'd guess those were a wash or barely profitable. The most profitable would be the ones which the Imperial power squeezed for everything and reinvested nothing. Both the US & India got a great deal of reinvestment.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
what did the americans produce for england while they were colonies?

The American colonial market was very important to UK manufacturers. Many of them would have gone under without it and the disruption of trade the revolutionary war caused a lot of English merchants to demand the country sign a peace deal so they could save their trade. Same goes for American merchants who wanted to resume the profitable trade they had.

[Seeker]

"I imagine colonies like the US & India generated a great deal of cash flow and resources but they also required a huge amount of capital expenditures for infastructure and military defense. I'd guess those were a wash or barely profitable. The most profitable would be the ones which the Imperial power squeezed for everything and reinvested nothing. Both the US & India got a great deal of reinvestment."


In a situation like the British Empire, I think you have to think of the colony and mother country as part of the same economic unit, not such stark seperation. The reinvestment/investment cycle can then be seen as a general growth in the economy of this unit.

I mean, think of it this way, would you consider the state of California a 'profitable' state? Sure they produce tons of revenue, but they also require immense 'reinvestment' in police, roads, dams, water, elec....but the point is that this flow or cycle gets bigger. It is a mistake to concieve of a colony and a mother country as being seperate economic units.

The great costs of india (and elsewhere) were met by ever increasing returns for capitalists, until they werent.

And once they weren't, the justification (amongst themselves, the elite, not jingoistic nonsense for the masses) became more and more tenuous once it became obvious to the new internationalist capital that national boundaries had become largely meaningless and they could make more money buying and selling between two equally "sovereign" "nations".

[VetLegion]

US colonies were pretty industrious from the outset, providing not only food and supplies for the Carribean, but also naval suplies and manufactures. The English tried to prevent this, banning smithies and such things because they could compete with English products, but eventually failed.

[Bosh]

My question is: what colonies have over the length of colonialism been net profitable for the metropola?

Most of the colonies that weren't profitable for the metropole were profitable for certain well-connected people in the metropole (people in the bureaucracy, businessmen, military figures etc. etc.) which was often the whole point...